I agree that with the EG-E1 the RP is a very comfortable camera to hold. I think the smaller battery must help here, allowing a less bulky grip.
Upvote
0
The Canon EOS R8 will be announced at CP+ in February
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I was just trying to establish, citing a wider FOV as a reason to use FF for eg BIF isn't an intrinsic benefit as you could always use a wider lens on a smaller sensor to get precisely the same result. 5DsR vs 7DII is fair enough, but no FF body has the pixel density of the R7, so it's a harder call to make. And while better AF on current Canon FF versus APS-C bodies is obviously relevant in practice, in principle it's beside the point when discussing potential objective benefits of different formats (as an APS-C or smaller sensor body could be paired with the highest level of AF, should a manufacturer choose to do so).
Upvote
0
The relative resolutions of APS-C and FF do, of course, depend on their number of Mpx. But, even comparing the 45 Mpx R5 and the 32 Mpx R7, there is still a fov advantage to the R5 at the same resolution. For example, a shorter 370mm lens on an R7 gives the same number of pixels per duck as a 500mm lens on an R5. But, the field of view of 370mm on the R7 is that of a 590mm on the R5, giving the R5 a non-negligible 18% advantage in fov.
The odds are that Canon will come out with an FF of about 88 Mpx, the same pixel density of the R7, just like they did for the 5DS vs 7DII, and we will then be back to the 60% fov advantage of the FF vs APS-C.
Upvote
0
That's fair
The geek in me does hope they release a substantially higher resolution body, even though I'd likely never be able to afford it.
Upvote
0
It's price, I'm afraid. Canon can, I think, can always fabricate an FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as an APS-C but it will cost more and take longer to read out data, unless maybe if it's global.That's fair
Upvote
0
I guess the difference between FSI and BSI depends on pixel size, is that correct? That’s an interesting point that I had not thought about.
I mentioned astronomy cameras, not smartphone sensors. The astronomy cameras don’t use small smartphone sensors and often have large pixels, and yet they switched to BSI years ago.
Upvote
0
One of the main reasons sensor manufacturers developed BSI was to enable smaller pixel sizes for small, high MP sensors. But BSI pixels of equal size have lower read noise and higher QE, so for low light applications it makes sense to use BSI (especially in combination with cooling – scientific cameras have also been taking that approach for many years).
Upvote
0
Assuming the R7 II will not be 40 MP.
Canon had bragging rights up until the X-H2 and X-T5.
Upvote
0
Canon readout is still much faster than the competition when it comes to rolling shutter.
I would not expect it to be much slower than the a7R V.
A stacked R1 S would be pretty amazing.
I would not expect any kind of global shutter.
Upvote
0
I would expect any upgrade of the R5 to have a much faster read out than the A7RV. The Sony has very slow readout at 62.5 ms, which is 4x slower than the current R5. Even if Canon doubled the read out time time on doubling the Mpx of the R5 sensor, it would still be half the time of the A7R5.
Upvote
0
An increase from 32 to 40 Mpx for an R7II would increase its resolution by only 12% whereas an increase of 45 to 88 Mpx for an R5II would increase its resolution by 40% and there would be only a teeny weeny crop factor advantage of an R7II over an R5II in terms of resolution.
Upvote
0
Any increase in MP for an R7 or any crop sensor camera will have diminishing returns, in my opinion. That 12% is purely theoretical, as I know you understand, but many don't. I had the chance to shoot both the R7 and R10. While in no way a scientific or thorough comparison, I did compare identical shots with both cameras and shooting hand held, there was often no discernable difference between the 24 MP and the 32MP shots. Zooming to 100% showed a slight resolution edge to the R7 less than 50% of the time, in other cases had to zoom even more and in some cases it didn't matter how much I zoomed. On a tripod the results might certainly have been different, but hand holding, as well as diffraction setting in, are the great equalizers when it comes to high MP sensors.
Upvote
0
I agree with you, as you do know. Under ideal conditions of decent light and low iso and using a sharp wider telephoto lens, like the 400mm f/4 DO II, you do see a lot of the 32 Mpx of the R7/90D/MII, but as you go to narrower lenses (or less sharp), there is little gain over a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor or the 45 Mpx R5. I am loathe to spell this out every time, but it should be said, like the the comment elsewhere that 800mm on the R7 is like 1280mm on the R5 should be contradicted.
Upvote
0
The previous "S", the 50 Mpx 5DS had 67% more pixels than the next highest 5D, the 5D IV, giving a noticeable ~30% increase in resolution. An 88 Mpx R5 S would give a 20% increase over a 60 Mpx R5 II under ideal circumstances of low iso and wide lenses as we are really getting into diminishing returms from diffraction and noise lowering resolution. So, with all the possibilities of increasing resolution from pixel shift and other technologies, I wonder if their would be much demand for an R5 S over an R5 II?
Upvote
0
I wonder how much buying power the part of the internet that keeps saying they want "an R5, but for still photos". Those people would like megapixels and won't let reality get in their way.
Upvote
0
I was referring to the people saying they don’t like the R5 because it’s too video centric and want a version that is for stills.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
